Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:04:47 -0800 | From | Bruce Perens <> | Subject | Re: Never mind. Re: Signal left blocked after signal handler. |
| |
What happened is that I attempted to simplify the test code to send to you, and simplified out the problem by using kill() instead of causing a fault. :-)
It's just what you describe here:
>One difference in 2.4.x and 2.6.x is the signal blocking wrt blocked >signals that are _forced_ (ie anything that is thread-synchronous, like a >SIGSEGV/SIGTRAP/SIGBUS that happens as a result of a fault): > > - in 2.4.x they will just punch through the block > - in 2.6.x they will refuse to punch through a blocked signal, but > since they can't be delivered they will cause the process to be > killed > > The behavior of 2.4 seems to be the same used by some dozens of Unix systems upon which my confidence test passed.
I agree that we should not be wrong in the same way as everyone else, and wonder if POSIX says anything about this. I could have been the only one using this "feature".
Thanks
Bruce
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |